Jump to content

AFTER TROUP FINDING: Anyone Still Questioning My Case For A UIL Transfer Rule Change


BlueDuckSaddle

Recommended Posts

I would like to see a regional UIL Compliance Official type position that would be responsible for certifying all situations such as this - then the problem would fall on UIL and not the schools. The system as it stands now is terribly flawed. And yes, in most cases you CAN blame the parents - they know exactly what they are doing.

 

That's exactly what we need! More UIL bureaucrats mucking up our schools! :thumbdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Old Troup, got caught. I rememeber afew years back, Troup turned down a student and the house was empty and forsale and they bought a house at the new school and The company bussiness was within 100 hundred yards, And had been there for 5 years. And Troup sup would not grant it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what changed between the time it was checked and this week?

 

Plain and simple. They got caught . The troups supertindents statement was misleading. It was not brought to their attention so they could investigate. The investigation was already done so to cover the school of any wrong doing they are blaming the kid and his family. The admin sure liked him last week when he ran over 400 yds. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plain and simple. They got caught . The troups supertindents statement was misleading. It was not brought to their attention so they could investigate. The investigation was already done so to cover the school of any wrong doing they are blaming the kid and his family. The admin sure liked him last week when he ran over 400 yds. :thumbsup:

 

Yeah, I would have liked it better had they done it before he ran for 400 against us. I was just struck by the irony that it came the week of the game against his former school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do it the old fashioned way...give one of the parents a job.

 

 

ding ding ding.....step up and collect your prize! BUT....at least there is a shred of legitimacy tied to that.....sometimes. Just depends on the job. "Director of Ambiguity" is a real tip-off it might not be legit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did check and house was empty.

 

Well genius.... if they checked and the house was empty, that would imply that the family no longer lived there which would make the child eligible as long as there was proof of residence in TISD. However, Troup admin seemingly decided this not to be the case because they deemed him to be ineligible in a self-report. You can't have this both ways. He either was eligible or guilty of violating the dual-residency rule, and in either case, TISD has culpability for the screw-up, not just the parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the simple truth is that cheating will always occur and the only ones the uil can penalize are the schools. If there are issues with the parents and there always are how can the UIL affect that behavior. By penalizing the school. Somehow the school has to ignore the letter of the law and look at the situation and make a judgement call. The rule book can be twisted into a pretzel but cheating is cheating and you either do or don't cheat. Occasionally an honest mistake can be made and this is where the UIL should be more lenient. It happened once where the maps said the house was in the district but they were inaccurate and a state survey showed the flaw. At that point the coach involved was forced to resign but should not have been. It was just to avoid the UIL penalizing the school. Ridiculous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well genius.... if they checked and the house was empty, that would imply that the family no longer lived there which would make the child eligible as long as there was proof of residence in TISD. However, Troup admin seemingly decided this not to be the case because they deemed him to be ineligible in a self-report. You can't have this both ways. He either was eligible or guilty of violating the dual-residency rule, and in either case, TISD has culpability for the screw-up, not just the parents.

 

 

Yes because their belongings were in an apartment in Troup which would imply that they lived there. An administrator verified that they had moved out and in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes because their belongings were in an apartment in Troup which would imply that they lived there. An administrator verified that they had moved out and in.

OK then.. like i said. If that was the case then why did the TISD admin decide they needed to self report that he was ineligible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...